The Brother of Jesus was a Leader of the Church of the Resurrected Jesus

It’s interesting that the two people Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 15 and Galatians 1 are the first two original Apostles he met in Jerusalem after he had spent three years in Damascus. For two weeks in Jerusalem on a fact finding trip he met with Peter and James. We have good evidence in the gospels none of the brothers of Jesus believed he was the Messiah, until that day James saw Jesus resurrected. In fact, Jesus’ brothers tried to goad him into a deathtrap by showing himself publically at a feast when they knew the Jewish leaders were trying to persecute and kill him. But then James emerges as one of pillars of the NT church and one of its leaders.

Even if Paul didn’t mention James seeing Jesus resurrected, you would have to invent something to account for his transformation and leadership in the church. What would it take to make you believe your brother was the Lord if you didn’t see him alive from the dead? He willingly went to his death in AD 67 by the Jewish Sanhedrin for his belief Jesus was Lord, Son of God, resurrected Messiah!

Signature

Repent and give your life to Christ. Come to the cross as a helpless sinner and receive the Lord Jesus as Savior and so shall you be saved. 12 groups saw Jesus resurrected.

There are many other excellent works on this subject, addressing an emerging field of understanding. But you’ve hit on the right question; whether you’re truly asking it or not remains to be seen. Take some time with these and other readings. Then come back and let’s talk about it.

Signature

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Again, noselfwilling, I point you to the historical Jesus scholar, Geza Vermes, who notes in several public volumes and scores of refereed papers that there is little to no historical basis for the claim that Jesus was resurrected.

Of the 45 sources we have of Jesus within 150 years of His death, 24 of them speak of His resurrection.

Hence, the original disciples truly believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings. Since no naturalistic explanation can account for this we know it is true.

Praise the Lord!

Insisting that there is not a “naturalistic” explanation for the disciple’s beliefs does not actually mean that there is not one. Or many.

Here’s a few, in no particular order:

1) their “beliefs” have been misrepresented by historical revisionists
2) they were culled into believing something that never happened
3) mental illness or drug use allowed them to “see” something that never happened
4) there is always good old fashioned deception

You continue to assume that the “eyewitness accounts” to which you refer were created by people focused on a modern idea of historicity and accuracy. The reality is, however, you are living in a post-enlightenment context and lending that paradigm to a group of ancient non-dualistic persons. The aristotitelian tension you perceive between “the natural” and “the supernatural” was not part of their thinking at all. For example, all of these people believed that lightning was the wrath of god being dispensed upon the earth. If someone had been able to demonstrate the natural means by which lightning occurrs, it would have been no less an act of god to them. Their interest was not in factual accuracy, but spiritual sensationalism. The important part of any account they gave referencing the Jesus character was not its historicity, but rather how it could demonstrate his God-ness. There is every reason to assume that accounts of impossible miracles were precisely that: impossible and fundamentally mythological. Criticism within various denominations of the church remain in conversation about this topic, but one of the biggest theological questions facing the church today is, “what does it mean to our faith/theology if the story of Jesus contains serious historical inaccuracies?” I think most mainline leaders would still see a great deal of value and importance in Jesus the archetype despite questions about Jesus the man. That’s dynamic, respectable faith that does not, even for a minute, claim to be beholden to the confines of scientific reasoning (which is why I maintain respect for it). However, when folks like you waltz in claiming that, under the auspices of rationality and science, the Bible is literally true, I am blown away. Your faith seems to be less a matter of true belief and more a product of stupidity, really poor arguments/evidence, and a lack of capacity and willingness to criticize that terrible evidence.

If you have faith, then find a way to believe that is not contingent upon such silly reasoning as that which you continue to present to us. If you are looking for a worldview that proceeds purely from evidence on hand, then don’t expect to find anything that resembles the western dualistic idea of a god.

Signature

“Ah! How cheerfully we consign ourselves to Perdition!”
-Melville-

“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”
-Pynchon-

In reference to E-M’s comment. The difference is that with a reasonable topic, each person states his/her views and gives the supporting data. The others read this information and we either modify our own ideas or recognize that we are using different premises. That takes about a page so we move on.

When a crackpot comes onto the forum with the goal of converting everyone, the regular members here break into a number of categories. 1) They recognize a crackpot so don’t bother posting more than once, 2) Those who don’t recognize that and hope to help the person change his/her views, 3) The nit-pickers who pick apart words, declensions, grammar, semantics, imprecisions, and 4) The anti-troll trolls. They see a chance for some fun so they keep stirring the guy up. Groups two three and four are the ones who keep the threads going on far longer than they should.

Note that the crackpots are not only impervious to logic or rational arguments, they don’t even bother responding to them.

We know Allah is Satan because God is not a deceiver. God would not have deceived the disciples and besides, group hallucinations are impossible.

Islam has no credibility, because no historian considers some guy in a cave all by himself six centuries later that disagrees with what is so firmly proven in so many multiply corroborated sources that Jesus died on the cross.

A loving God provides evidence and would never ask you to believe in blindly what Muhammad said. Muhammad is going to Hell with Allah Satan.

Since the disciples didn’t lie, the writers of the NT didn’t lie, Jesus didn’t lie to the disciples and God the Father is not a deceiver, then you know Muhammad is a liar or deceived or both, and Satan the father of lies is Allah, a liar and a deceiver.

Repent and give your life to Christ. Come to the cross as a helpless sinner and receive the Lord Jesus as Savior and so shall you be saved.

Signature

Repent and give your life to Christ. Come to the cross as a helpless sinner and receive the Lord Jesus as Savior and so shall you be saved. 12 groups saw Jesus resurrected.